Uber and Lyft Used a Loophole to Deny NYC Drivers Millions in Pay
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
If that is indeed the case, I feel like this makes sense and is a normal thing for a job. Making sure that your employee is staying productive to a certain degree and not over-hiring.
Too many drivers on the road means people have less work to share. I am super reluctant to side with either of them but to call this a "loophole" doesn't seem right. To me it seems like them doing what they should have been doing this entire time and making sure passenger demand and driver availability properly line up.
What am I missing here?
>The pay formula leads to the lockouts solution, said Lyft spokesperson CJ Macklin. “Which means drivers continue to see limits on when they can earn, riders are still waiting longer to get to where they need to go, and Lyft can’t serve New Yorkers in the way they are expecting,” he said. (By Lyft’s calculation, its customers have been waiting about two minutes longer per trip.)
>“This poor experience is why we don’t deploy lockouts anywhere else except in this unique situation, and it’s why we need a long-term fix,” he added.
I am not seeing that it has nothing to do with customer demand but instead the quote you said to meis saying it leads to problems with responding to an increase in demand.
If I understand the point of this article properly they require 58% utilization to pay minimum wage.
The article even mentions the cost savings for these companies to optimize their drivers to have a higher utilization rate.
Edit:
> Do said in a Sept. 27 public testimony at the city council that his agency intends to announce rules by the end of the year that would limit new driver onboarding as a way of deterring future lockouts.
I don't think they would be contemplating the above if there was no relation to customer demand.